Why the Camaro is Doomed!!

[The80sman]

Bottom line is "It aint over till its over". When GM says " The Camaro has been cancelled" thats when i believe it. Im getting tired of the negative Chcken little bit.

[topgun1]

Originally Posted by TFord

the opinions stated here are not from TFord so dont flame me (too hard). I saw this article and wanted to get you guys opinions.

Many want to ignore it. Others are aware but don't care. These gas prices will dictate future cars - there's no doubt about it. Here's an editorial written that I couldn't help but bring over to FQuick for people to comment on. Hit the jump for the full read!

Why the 2009 Camaro is Doomed
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Motorheads don’t want to hear it; refuse to believe it — but ugly realities are coming down hard on the ‘09 Camaro that will very possibly cause GM to pull the plug before the first one ever rolls off the line.

Doubt that? Consider the stillborn rear-wheel-drive next generation Chevy Impala — nixed because of concerns within GM about the possibility of meeting the pending (2012) 35 mpg fuel economy edict recently passed by Congress. A lighter front-drive car with a V-6 instead of a V-8 can make the cut; a V-8 RWD Impala can’t. So it’s gone. So is the talked-about next generation GTO. And the future of the G8 sedan looks not so good. GM is openly talking about scaling back the entire Pontiac division — and ending its role as a performance brand.

No bull; not my opinion. Just facts.

Now consider the 2009 Camaro — and the world in which it will have to swim. Gas prices are already surging toward $4 per gallon for regular unleaded. And Camaro’s not even here yet. By the time the car reaches production status in about eight months or so, we may very well be at $5 per gallon.

Maybe more.

At the same time, the buying power of the dollar is falling down the well — so everything is becoming more expensive, not just gas. And most of us are not making more money to compensate. Quite the opposite. Inflation and income stagnation are hitting us hard. Those of us who still have jobs and have been able to maintain the same income we had a year or so ago are few, thankful — and nervous. Buying a new car is not on our agenda. And buying a frivolous new car even less so. Camaro is not an exotic; it is a "Joe Sixpack" kind of car — so middle class and working class buyer skittishness is no small thing.

GM is well aware of these facts — which are going to kneecap Camaro (and any car like it) on the consumer level. Whatever the projected sales potential was two years ago should probably be cut in half. Bet your bippie that the bean counters within GM have thought about this, too.

That’s bad enough — and by itself could be sufficient to make going ahead with Camaro in 2009 about as sensible as building something like a Series 62 Cadillac would have been in 1979.

But wait, there’s more. Don’t forget the 10,000 pound Tallboy bomb that’s about to fall onto GM’s head (and ours) in the form of the 35 mpg CAFE edict. That changes … everything. The recession, crippling gas prices and declining buying power of the dollar are merely the coupe de grace.

A V-6 Camaro could maybe meet the current 27.5 mpg CAFE requirement for passenger cars without major engineering changes/expenses or hitting buyers with a "gas guzzler" surcharge that would bump the purchase price of the car up by $1,000 or more.

But 35 mpg? Only a few four-cylinder economy compacts and hybrids make it under that bar. Anything much over about 3,200 pounds with an engine larger than 3 liters is getting iffy. With a 300-plus hp V-8 engine and rear-wheel-drive?

Forget it.

Don’t believe it? Chew on this:

The current Ford Mustang GT — a car very similar in layout/power and so on to the pending ‘09 Camaro — manages just 17 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg on the highway. That’s with the 4 liter V-6 engine, by the way. The GT’s 4.6 liter V-8 (300 hp) slurps it down at the rate of 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway. To survive 35 mpg CAFE, the V-8 Mustang GT would have to somehow nearly double its current average fuel economy. How is this going to be achieved, exactly? Think Ford is worried about the Mustang’s viability?

You’d better believe it.

The new Dodge Challenger is in even worse shape, CAFE wise. Its wonderful 6.1 liter V-8 won’t last long in this world, given city mileage of 13 mpg — and highway mileage that isn’t even out of the teens (18 mpg). Yes, a V-6 version is coming, but the most efficient engines of this size/type that Chrysler has available - like Ford — don’t come close to delivering 35 mpg.

Camaro’s in the same pickle. Neither the base V-6 version nor the high-powered V-8 model have a prayer of achieving CAFE compliance. If they’re produced, buyers will be facing huge "gas guzzler" surcharges that will only add to the growing roster of negatives arguing against making a purchase — from $75 fill-ups to the general uselessness of cars of these type, beyond their ability to provide a good time.

And here’s the deal: Chrysler’s already on the hook; the commitment to production has been made. It will have to at least try to make a go of it. For awhile. Ford has a strong buyer base for the Mustang; a case can be made that even with gas guzzler fees and generally awful times, economically speaking, it’s worth trying to hold the line — at least, for the moment.

But Camaro?

GM no longer has a sure bet buyer base; the name has been out of circulation for almost seven years now. That is a long time, regardless of other external issues, such as gas prices. Rebuilding a brand/make of car is tough in the best of times. In bad times, it is a fool’s errand. And it’s a luxury that cash-strapped, no longer number one GM cannot afford to indulge. If Camaro sinks — as all signs indicate it will — GM will lose a ton of money. Remember that unlike Challenger (which is "spun off" the existing Charger sedan) GM has had to invest a great deal in what amounts to a brand-new platform/tooling and so on to make this happen. Big sales are needed to make it up. It increasingly looks as though that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Which is why GM may just abort the whole thing before it ever sees the light of day.

You wait and see.

Source: http://www.motorists.org/blog/techno...aro-is-doomed/

Those 35 mpg ratings are fleet averages, not for each car.

Bring on the PonyKiller as planned.

[brantley847]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I know a few people who got rid of their trucks because they couldn't afford the fuel, but going from a truck/suv to a Camaro would be enought of a step up for them in efficiency that they would be pleased. They would be particularly pleased to have 300HP, RWD, and not be driving an import.

EXACTLY!, even the V8 SS (assuming it is still pushing 400hp) as once stated?? ...even that will get better gas mileage than my truck which pushes 10 mpg city. I still plan on keeping my truck cause its 3 feet taller than everyone else and its safe as hell. Well, safe for me...not so much the rest of you. haha I kid, I kid..

[Myka]

They should give this guy a job at NBC news. They're really good at spewing doom and gloom pessimism.

[Mr. Wyndham]

All these articles/stories/etc all have a similar tone........


WHY THE CAMARO IS DOOMED:
Because I think so!


that convinces me......every time.

[Nickdago]

[I]But Camaro?

GM no longer has a sure bet buyer base; the name has been out of circulation for almost seven years now. That is a long time, regardless of other external issues, such as gas prices. Rebuilding a brand/make of car is tough in the best of times. In bad times, it is a fool’s errand. And it’s a luxury that cash-strapped, no longer number one GM cannot afford to indulge. If Camaro sinks — as all signs indicate it will — GM will lose a ton of money. Remember that unlike Challenger (which is "spun off" the existing Charger sedan) GM has had to invest a great deal in what amounts to a brand-new platform/tooling and so on to make this happen. Big sales are needed to make it up. It increasingly looks as though that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Which is why GM may just abort the whole thing before it ever sees the light of day.

You wait and see.

Actually based on the response to the Challenger and the fact that the Camaro is even more anticipated buy even more people I have no doubt the Camaro will sell just fine. As far as the architecture it is also being used on the Holden, a similar car being sold in Britan under another name (Vaux something) the pontiac G8 as well as the Camaro, so I am sure they should not have any trouble getting their costs back

The new Dodge Challenger is in even worse shape, CAFE wise. Its wonderful 6.1 liter V-8 won’t last long in this world, given city mileage of 13 mpg — and highway mileage that isn’t even out of the teens (18 mpg). Yes, a V-6 version is coming, but the most efficient engines of this size/type that Chrysler has available - like Ford — don’t come close to delivering 35 mpg.

Actually a buddy of mine just got his Challenger and believe me he could care less how much gas cost. No one buying this car is worried about mileage, I mean it is a 425hp Hemi, thats all that matters to that buyer. As a matter of fact my buddy is already in the process of increasing the HP with aftermarket products, that is how worried he is about mpg.

[chadrcr]

Good mileage, good price, great car=== great sales.

[Nickdago]

Buy the way here is the same Pinhead 2 years ago bashing the Camaro, looks like this guys jig is up. This guy is just plain bad news.

Why the New Camaro Will Fail
The war on macho takes its toll.
by ERIC PETERS
Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Watching Ford bathe in the glory of its resurgent, retro-style Mustang has surely been agonizing for General Motors--as well as deja vu all over again.

Back in 1964, when the first Mustang appeared, GM also had to stand there empty handed, with nothing to offer customers but fumbling excuses--and promises that something was in the works. Three years later, in 1967, the first Camaro finally appeared. It was a good-looking car and did well. But the Mustang had a critical three-year head start. Camaro was caught playing catch-up. It had some good years--especially in the mid-late 1970s and through the 1980s, when Tuned Port Injection IROC-Zs were as common as Ocean Pacific shorts and boom boxes as street performers--but faltered badly in the 1990s after a not-so-hot restyle.

Sales drooped to unsustainable levels within a few years and GM eventually cancelled the Camaro (and its sheetmetal sister, the Pontiac Firebird) after the 2002 model year.





Now GM is frantically rushing an all-new Camaro to market, perhaps as soon as 2007. The news has been accompanied by great fanfare and hagiographical commentary in the motor press--the same way news that Pontiac would be bringing back the GTO ginned up much tub-thumping and happy scribbling back in 2003. (Much of this rah-rahing issued from the pens and laptops of over-40 guys who could remember the good old days when obstreperous V-8 muscle cars prowled the streets--and pined for their youthful days-gone-by returning.)
But the revived GTO died quickly and quietly--despite heroic horsepower numbers and better performance than any classic-era GTO ever delivered. Some of us saw it coming from the get-go.

The new Camaro will probably die on the vine for the same reasons--and a couple of new ones, too.

And again, it's not all that hard to understand why. Or to see the iceberg dead ahead.

Unlike the Mustang--which has always managed to appeal to a broad base of buyers ranging from young women to old men and everyone in between--the Camaro is and always has been a strutting muscle machine. A car for drive-throughs, Friday night cruising, and teenage boys.

That works fine when it's 1969--and young, single guys can still afford to buy (and insure) such a car. It doesn't work so well in today's hamstrung, hyper-regulated and cost-inflated world. Part of what killed the latter-day GTO was its $30k price point. The young (under 30) guys who might want such a car couldn't afford it--and the older guys who could had grown up. They wanted something less goofy. So did their wives. The same problem will surely beset the coming Camaro--unless GM, by some miracle of Enron-esque accounting, figures out a way to sell the thing for less than $25,000.

And that still leaves the insurance issue. (Will GM offer to cover the nut?) And the reality that the market slice for cars of this type has become narrower than Paris Hilton's waistline. Ford has already vacuumed up a goodly chunk of the prospective buyers. Import sport compacts will prove stiff competition for the remainder. How many new Camaros must GM sell to make the project economically viable? And how hard will that be given the late start, limited buyer pool--and the very real danger of $3 per gallon (or more) fuel? A 15 mpg V-8 muscle car in a world of $70 fill-ups is apt to be about as popular as Hummers and Navigators and Excursions--sheetmetal Brontosauri that face extinction (or at least, massive discounting just to get them off dealers' lots).

These are daunting challenges.

But the thing that will drive a stake through the new Camaro's hood, deep into its small-block heart, is the polarizing, hyper-macho cod piece styling. If the production car ends up looking like the show car that's been in every buff magazine and all over the news, it will be the belly flop heard 'round the world.





The enduring genius of Ford's Mustang is that it transcends testosterone--and the muscle car era. Fitted with a hi-po engine and stripes, it's a car that guys absolutely love. But it doesn't alienate women--and women are half the market, don't forget (and most guys have a woman in their lives who they'd prefer not to annoy with their choice of car). The previous generation (1994-2002) Camaro was an "in your face" kind of car--and so is this new one. You either love it--or you hate it. And the question is, can GM afford such a confrontational machine with inherently limited appeal--one that's already hobbled by being late to the game, fighting for a relatively small subset of prospective buyers and which will likely arrive just in time for the next ugly uptick in gas prices?
The smart money (or mine, at least) says don't bet the farm on it.

It's 2007--not 1967.

Like a botox'd, aerobicized, fish-netted Cher crooning on the mothballed battleship "Iowa," you can sing longingly about turning back time all you like. Actually doing it, of course, is a tougher thing to engineer.

Mr. Peters is an automotive columnist and author of "Automotive Atrocities: Cars We Love to Hate" (MBI). This article appeared on the Web site of The American Spectator.

[chadrcr]

^
eric peters' @$$ ... a good place for a big boot.

[TAG UR IT]

yup...same old *&*& %#$#.

[dtbrown]

If they are so worried about MPG and lack of power GM should work on developing turbo 6 cylinder motors then. If you know or not there are 260hp turbo 4 cylinder car's are getting close to 30mpg as of now. I don't see why with a little engineering we couldn't see a 30mpg turbo 6 cylinder motor pushing over 300hp? Just an idea.

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by dtbrown

If they are so worried about MPG and lack of power GM should work on developing turbo 6 cylinder motors then. If you know or not there are 260hp turbo 4 cylinder car's are getting close to 30mpg as of now. I don't see why with a little engineering we couldn't see a 30mpg turbo 6 cylinder motor pushing over 300hp? Just an idea.

well 3 mpg more isn't hard to do put it in a lighter car with a slightly taller gear ratio and bam the 3.6 DI would get over 30 mpg if you drove it at 65 mph rather then 80. so why turbo charge for only 30 mpg? why not 40?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by dtbrown

If they are so worried about MPG and lack of power GM should work on developing turbo 6 cylinder motors then. If you know or not there are 260hp turbo 4 cylinder car's are getting close to 30mpg as of now. I don't see why with a little engineering we couldn't see a 30mpg turbo 6 cylinder motor pushing over 300hp? Just an idea.

I shall answer your question with one of my own: if a turbo4 gets nearly 30 mpg in an economy car, how could a bigger, more powerful engine get better economy in a larger sports car? I'm not saying we won't see turbo6's making the numbers you suggest, but by the time they do the turbo4s will be at about 35 mpg. At any rate, the direct injection V6 in the CTS makes over 300 hp, is in a fairly heavy car, gets upper 20's for highway mileage, and doesn't have AFM. So a 30 mpg V6 @ 300 hp isn't too far out of the question, without a turbo.

[BowtieGuy]

You know what this Peters guy sounds like to me? After reading both of his articles, I think it's safe to say he's a Pony boy who wishes he hadn't already bought a Mustang and is terrified of running into a 2010 Camaro SS at a stoplight.